Right. Now it remains to be seen whether the Judge is going to call Verizon in on the carpet. If I were the Judge, I surely would be doing that, but I haven't seen any hint of that in the Court's orders.
Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute.
It was a subpoena, issued by an attorney, not a court order. Verizon was responding to a subpoena, not a court order. The only court order at the time was an order permitting the attorneys to serve subpoenas.
It is not a "sign of respect" to provide responses to a subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena is pending; it is a "sign of contempt".
Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things.
The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?".
Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?
Certainly in this case yes, where (a) the information is private confidential information of the subscriber, (b) Verizon has notified the subscriber that the information will be turned over on May 12th in the absence of a motion to quash, and (c) there is a pending motion to quash.
And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from?
He or she is one of the John Does. He was notified by Verizon of the subpoena, and of his right to make a motion to quash, which he did, in this case, exercise.
And why were they able to file a motion to quash?
Why not?
Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after?
Prior to the information being turned over, he was notified by Verizon that it would be turned over on May 12th unless he filed a motion to quash.
Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash?
I don't know for sure if Verizon knew, but it is hard to imagine any set of circumstances under which it did not know. If it did not know, then plaintiff's counsel acted in an extremely inappropriate manner. But it is much more likely that Verizon did know.
Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?
Yes it absolutely knew that. It sent him or her a letter telling him or her that it would reveal his or her identity in response to the subpoena on May 12th.
But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it.
Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.
In this case Verizon undoubtedly did notify the John Does that it would turn over the information on May 12th. The John Doe quite properly made the motion to quash well in advance of that date, back in April. Verizon had absolutely no business turning over the documents on May 7th. If I were the judge, I would be calling Verizon in on the carpet.
Your response was hysterical. Unfortunately, it seems that the people with mod points didn't read carefully. Sorry about that. Whoever you are, I got it:) You should have been modded "+5, Funny". Instead you're at "-1". Bummer.
Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.
Actually just a single copy of a single low budget movie
The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence.
... if it's appropriate to turn it over
The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.
I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."
Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.
...particularly when you know there's a motion to quash pending
That's a great theory... Why don't you look in the copyright act and find where there's support for that theory that he's not subject to licensing fees since he didn't charge? We'll wait.
You mean this part?
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending 17. USC 106(3);
In order to prove your loyalty, you must obey my command and try to get this other story submission -- about Verizon responding to a subpoena BEFORE its response was due, and thus mooting judicial review of the subpoena -- voted up:
"Verizon answers John Doe subpoena BEFORE it was due"
I haven't seen NYCL (NewYorkCountryLawyer, for the uninformed) in a while and I do terribly miss him. He's one of the nicer things about Slashdot. But, it looks like he started posting again in the last few days! Hello NYCL!
Thank you Ihmhi
Yeah I really have been remiss, will try to do better:)
In order to have a distribution under copyright law there has to be a sale, or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease, or lending, to the public, none of which occurred here, so that's not an issue.
Can somebody please translate this summary to English.
Dear Supreme Court:
When an mp3 file sells at retail for 99 cents, and the record company is out about 5 cents from an unauthorized download, it's beyond the pale to allow me to be penalized more than a few dollars for it, especially since I was not making any money on it, I was just listening to the music.
So please rule on this issue to take the insanity out of present day copyright law.
Thank you
Your friend
Joel Tenenbaum (& his lawyer Prof. Charlie Nesson)
Just a few hours ago Slashdot reported that a judge had refused an injunction against ReDigi, and now they are supposed to have won their case? I'd say there are two possibilities: One, that we have a judge who can run at speeds exceeding the speed of light, because that's the only way a case could have finished so quick. Or second, that the submitter is a clueless twat you didn't understand a word of what he is actually submitting. Since there is no link to any real information, I assume the latter.
As many of you have pointed out, the linked article -- and hence the Slashdot summary -- are inaccurate. The judge denied the record company's motion for a preliminary injunction... no more, no less. Here is the court's decision, along with "commentary and discussion" from other news media, including the accurate Slashdot post on this case.
Hi Ray. You may be right, but when you back up your assertion with a link that says 'please log in to view this page' then I am forced to disagree citing this source.
Sorry my friend:) Here is the link to which I meant to refer (he said sheepishly).
Thanks Mister Liberty, but we have a lot of work ahead of us. At least it is clear that we have a well informed, serious judge. Which makes me confident we will ultimately prevail.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Now it remains to be seen whether the Judge is going to call Verizon in on the carpet. If I were the Judge, I surely would be doing that, but I haven't seen any hint of that in the Court's orders.
So far.
None of the procedures you described are applicable in this court.
Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute.
It was a subpoena, issued by an attorney, not a court order. Verizon was responding to a subpoena, not a court order. The only court order at the time was an order permitting the attorneys to serve subpoenas.
It is not a "sign of respect" to provide responses to a subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena is pending; it is a "sign of contempt".
I was under the impression that we all knew that IP addresses mean shit when trying to identify a person....
Most of us do know that, but plaintiff's lawyers are hoping that the judges are among those who don't know.
If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?
It's based on a single BitTorrent download. I don't know the technology by which they claim to have identified the account.
Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things. The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?". Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?
Certainly in this case yes, where (a) the information is private confidential information of the subscriber, (b) Verizon has notified the subscriber that the information will be turned over on May 12th in the absence of a motion to quash, and (c) there is a pending motion to quash.
And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from?
He or she is one of the John Does. He was notified by Verizon of the subpoena, and of his right to make a motion to quash, which he did, in this case, exercise.
And why were they able to file a motion to quash?
Why not?
Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after?
Prior to the information being turned over, he was notified by Verizon that it would be turned over on May 12th unless he filed a motion to quash.
Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash?
I don't know for sure if Verizon knew, but it is hard to imagine any set of circumstances under which it did not know. If it did not know, then plaintiff's counsel acted in an extremely inappropriate manner. But it is much more likely that Verizon did know.
Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?
Yes it absolutely knew that. It sent him or her a letter telling him or her that it would reveal his or her identity in response to the subpoena on May 12th.
But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it. Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.
In this case Verizon undoubtedly did notify the John Does that it would turn over the information on May 12th. The John Doe quite properly made the motion to quash well in advance of that date, back in April. Verizon had absolutely no business turning over the documents on May 7th. If I were the judge, I would be calling Verizon in on the carpet.
Your response was hysterical. Unfortunately, it seems that the people with mod points didn't read carefully. Sorry about that. Whoever you are, I got it :) You should have been modded "+5, Funny". Instead you're at "-1". Bummer.
Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.
Actually just a single copy of a single low budget movie
The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence.
... if it's appropriate to turn it over
The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.
I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."
Well said.
Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.
...particularly when you know there's a motion to quash pending
That's a great theory... Why don't you look in the copyright act and find where there's support for that theory that he's not subject to licensing fees since he didn't charge? We'll wait.
You mean this part?
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending 17. USC 106(3);
I for one welcome our NYCL Overlords!
In order to prove your loyalty, you must obey my command and try to get this other story submission -- about Verizon responding to a subpoena BEFORE its response was due, and thus mooting judicial review of the subpoena -- voted up:
"Verizon answers John Doe subpoena BEFORE it was due"
I haven't seen NYCL (NewYorkCountryLawyer, for the uninformed) in a while and I do terribly miss him. He's one of the nicer things about Slashdot. But, it looks like he started posting again in the last few days! Hello NYCL!
Thank you Ihmhi
:)
Yeah I really have been remiss, will try to do better
I miss you guys (and by guys I mean gals too)
Dear Prof. Nesson, and Mr. Tenenbaum
In order to have a distribution under copyright law there has to be a sale, or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease, or lending, to the public, none of which occurred here, so that's not an issue.
But thanks for asking.
Love
The Supremes
Send our regards to Theaetetus
Can somebody please translate this summary to English.
Dear Supreme Court:
When an mp3 file sells at retail for 99 cents, and the record company is out about 5 cents from an unauthorized download, it's beyond the pale to allow me to be penalized more than a few dollars for it, especially since I was not making any money on it, I was just listening to the music.
So please rule on this issue to take the insanity out of present day copyright law.
Thank you
Your friend
Joel Tenenbaum (& his lawyer Prof. Charlie Nesson)
Aw thanks :)
Yeah, an informed account of that decision by the actual lawyer for ReDigi was posted on slashdot just this morning.
You telling me NewYorkCountryLawyer is a real lawyer? Damn, I preferred the fictional version --> "6 most badass lawyers ever"
Just a few hours ago Slashdot reported that a judge had refused an injunction against ReDigi, and now they are supposed to have won their case? I'd say there are two possibilities: One, that we have a judge who can run at speeds exceeding the speed of light, because that's the only way a case could have finished so quick. Or second, that the submitter is a clueless twat you didn't understand a word of what he is actually submitting. Since there is no link to any real information, I assume the latter.
Haven't you heard of a 'rocket docket'?
Please stop reading this story and read NYCL's submission [slashdot.org] instead. It has the virtue of being grounded in reality and based on fact.
Yeah, but reality can be so dreary some times.
As many of you have pointed out, the linked article -- and hence the Slashdot summary -- are inaccurate. The judge denied the record company's motion for a preliminary injunction... no more, no less. Here is the court's decision, along with "commentary and discussion" from other news media, including the accurate Slashdot post on this case.
Hi Ray. You may be right, but when you back up your assertion with a link that says 'please log in to view this page' then I am forced to disagree citing this source.
Sorry my friend :) Here is the link to which I meant to refer (he said sheepishly).
What is "a hot bench"?
It means the judge or judges have read the briefs thoroughly and are highly prepared.
This case isn't about whether digital goods are real or not. It's about you only get to choose one. It's either real or it's not.
Well said.
Congrats to NewYorkCountryLawyer.
Thanks Mister Liberty, but we have a lot of work ahead of us. At least it is clear that we have a well informed, serious judge. Which makes me confident we will ultimately prevail.